Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

He wants people to read an article - but I did so and its opening paragraph is a pack of accidental or deliberate lies (if Bob was not a liar he would accept this reality - but I know that he won't).

https://www.facebook.com/cowboybobsorensen"The pseudoscience [LIAR] of global climate change should be thrown on the scrap heap of History. People who adore Bill Nye the throw climate change deniers in jail guy still will not pay attention to real science [LIAR] refuting global climate change. This [a Facebook post at something called WHY?Outreach which quotes from nowtheendbegins.com and then offers the supporting link] is worth reading":"EDITOR’S NOTE: As a teenager in the 70’s, how well I remember the headlines blaring the news that man-caused global freezing [LIAR, THE PREDICTION WAS THAT A NATURAL ICE AGE GLACIATION MIGHT BE 'CLOSE'] was about to take place. Yes, we had fake news back then, too. The reason stated at that time, according to science, was our overuse of aerosol spray products which was eating a hole in the ozone layer [LIAR, THE OZONE HOLE SCIENCE BECAME KNOWN IN THE 1980'S AND THERE'S NO LINK BETWEEN OZONE LAYER DEPLETION AND GLOBAL 'COOLING']. This was going to bring about another ice age. Hmmm, still waiting as I purchase products in the supermarket in aerosol containers. Flash forward to the Al Gore Age, with the PowerPoint that scared the Liberal world into, no, not stopping global warming climate change, but making him fabulously wealthy many, many times over. The Millennial generation, who are famously long on outrage and short on history, were easy pickings for the climate con man from Tennessee. Favorite moment from the global warming climate change hoax? When Al Gore sold his television channel, Current TV, to an Arabian petroleum company. Wait, aren’t oil companies the ‘bad guys”? Ho, ho, ho, don’t you know…people love to be fooled [WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE LYING TO THEM]...Read/watch the details here: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/the-clim ... rom-1970s/"

How many other lies did Geoffrey Grider tell at that nowtheendbegins.com political article? Actually just one. "Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization."

Bob and WHY?Outreach also deliberately ignore Grider admitting that he's not saying that human influence on climate is negligible.

This (from 2013) will cause Sorensen embarrassment:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... saurs-die/"Dinosaur fossils are found in the fossil record only below the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary... Thin sediment layers at the K-T boundary contain lots of iridium, and evolutionary scientists claim the iridium must have come from an asteroid because they think most of earth’s iridium should have sunk down into molten mantle millions of years earlier. Therefore they presume a cosmic catastrophe killed the dinosaurs.While the Chicxulub impact crater near Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula memorializes the impact of an enormous chunk of space debris, it remains an insufficient explanation. There seems to be too much iridium dispersed over the earth to be explained by just an asteroid. Iridium coughed up by volcanic activity also explains these layers [no reference was provided] ... Thus, volcanic activity ... is also a reasonable explanation for iridium at the K-T boundary."

There's a correlation between dinosaurs vanishing in the fossil record/geological column and the worldwide iridium layer/anomaly, and AiG also accept there was an impact from space at Chicxulub:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_anomaly

AiG are sort of beginning to acknowledge scientific reality here - but propaganda merchant Sorensen (along with propaganda merchants Coppedge and the ICR) are still in DENIAL (and they've got a new article at astrobio.net which they thinks helps them push the Genesis worldwide Flood as a real and recent event). Thus we get this from Sorensen: "dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood". He's not only a liar but an apparent HERETIC seemingly wilfully ignoring Genesis 6: 19-20 (which he would claim includes dinosaurs as he falsely claims they were alive 'recently'): "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them ALIVE with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept ALIVE." And: "While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse [WHAT ABOUT THE SHOCKED QUARTZ], and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough [SAYS WHO, APART FROM THE ICR]. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs), the impact was nowhere near as large as the secular science industry is proclaiming [LIARS]."

Coppedge presents some made-up 'facts': "In the Genesis Flood scenario, some dinosaurs were taken aboard the Ark, and the rest perished. Those that proliferated for a short time after the Flood were understandably hunted down as pests or as trophies for ‘dragon slayers.’ That’s why none of the post-Flood dinosaurs fossilized, and why none survive today." And the new ICR article by Thomas (after making feeble claims regarding frogs, the crater not being perfectly circular, and a lack of melted rock) does the same thing (after claiming that volcanism could explain Chicxulub but FAILING to mention the shocked quartz which results from an impact): "Did an asteroid impact kill the dinosaurs millions of years ago? No way. Noah’s recent Flood formed dinosaur fossils fast all over the world".https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... cean-floor (article from 2018)http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 4.full.pdf

Had Sorensen said I was wrong to suggest he was a heretic because really he believes that the Genesis flood hastened the extinction of the dinosaurs (and that he expressed himself clumsily when writing ''dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood'') I would have accepted the explanation/clarification. After all in his earlier post dated 19 June 2017 he wrote: ''the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs''. That statement is not obviously unbiblical. The statement ''dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood'' looks/sounds completely unbiblical as it implies that the flood was an extinction event - which contradicts Genesis 6:19-20 as I CLEARLY explained. (Such a flood would have killed many land-based animals but God himself said that pairs of all animals would be saved on the ark and they were then told to multiply and re-populate the Earth.)

However, instead he has launched a bizarre attack - which suggests that either I understand the Bible better than him or that he knows I was correct but hates me so much that he wants to demonise me and anything I say to his band of unthinking followers:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/ (see under the Dinosaur Extinction article)''Listen up, gang! I'm a heretic. Thought you show know.Why? This is in from an atheist who has no degrees in science or theology, but has persisted in demonstrating that he will sacrifice truth and logic on the altars of Scientism and bigotry: "Thus we get this from Sorensen: "dinosaur extinction is a result of the Genesis Flood". He's not only a liar but an apparent HERETIC seemingly wilfully ignoring Genesis 6: 19-20 (which he would claim includes dinosaurs as he falsely claims they were alive 'recently'): 'You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them ALIVE with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept ALIVE.'" This alleged "former Christian" is like the rest who claim that title: he shows no appreciable knowledge of Scripture and theology. Or logic. In other places, he's only good at selective citing and throwing links from evolutionists at you, but not skilled in thinking. -CBBFull diatribe for your edification on what hatred and demonic oppression do to the mind, and for your amusement: [link to the preceding post]''

I am circulating this very widely via email for the same intended purpose as Bob - edification (and enlightenment).

So recipients can judge who is the person who is sacrificing truth and logic, who is guilty of scientism and bigotry, who is misusing or deliberately ignoring or totally ignorant of (even after being SHOWN) what Genesis 6 says, who cites 'selectively' (he means to paint a false picture), who is better at 'throwing links' at people than at thinking, and who is the nastier, the most evasive and the most vexatious/provocative in his online behaviour.

(Sorensen's comment has been up for 15 hours and nobody seems to have commented on it so far.)

PS Sorensen is also a wilful denier of human caused recent and ongoing climate change/global warming - because it's 'unbiblical' apparently. Only this week he showed his bigotry by writing on Facebook: ''The pseudoscience of global climate change should be thrown on the scrap heap of History''.

Now on his main Facebook page he's flagged yet more one-sided science from the YEC community on this topic (NB the arguments are at least more intelligent and informed than those of Ken Ham who consistently ignores how the atmosphere has been altered by humans - but that achievement is not hard):http://www.icr.org/article/10677/Interestingly the article is a classic case of selective citing - where all the references are to YEC articles and articles by various kinds of climate change sceptics (Roy Spencer is both a sceptic and an ID advocate) - to sustain a narrative that was decided in advance. That narrative being: ''That the climate system would be relatively insensitive to such changes is expected by biblical creationists. Since Earth and its climate system were designed by an all-knowing, loving Creator who promised us a degree of climate stability (Genesis 8:22), one would expect the climate to be relatively insensitive to changes that would tend to push it toward extremes.''

It's funny how whenever I have mentioned here and elsewhere the effects of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere Bob has paid no attention. Yet now he is freely citing a YEC apologist who states, correctly, ''The greatest point of contention in the debate over “global warming” or “climate change” is not whether or not a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) would warm the planet. Carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse gas” that is very effective at absorbing and emitting infrared radiation...''.

As you may be aware, like Ken Ham, Hebert also claims - falsely and un-biblically - that the Genesis flood was followed by an 'ice age' (and he's even been researching this FICTIONAL 'recent' event that was MADE UP by YEC apologists):http://www.icr.org/jake_hebert/

This biblical creationist (who has a PhD) is playing fast and loose with a BIBLE verse (Genesis 8:22). It is 'consistent' with the 'recent ice age' fictional nonsense made up by THEM. But 'inconsistent' with the REALITY of current man-caused climate change/global warming (in Hebert's case rather than saying it's 'natural'/caused by God he's saying the climate is 'stable' so therefore humans can't cause any dangerous warming). But how can he possibly claim that an 'ice age' lasting 'centuries' (and not artificially triggered) also shows a 'stable' climate as promised by God post-flood? He CAN'T.

Just one question this evil person in Christian clothing wilfully ignores (preferring to make personal attacks because that's all he's capable of when the facts are against him). WHAT ABOUT THAT SHOCKED QUARTZ?

And he and two of his most notorious sidekicks are whining - instead of addressing this post and addressing the reality that lies, bigotry and hypocrisy by these people drives people away from considering or re-considering Christianity (even though there are plenty of decent loving reasonable Bible believing Christians out there who do not embrace the YEC cult of hate, extremism and wilful reality denial):viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=52120&hilit=moronic#p52120

I am not an intellectual coward. The intellectual cowards are 'The Question Evolution Project'. Bigoted fundamentalists and also climate change bigots. Even when you quote the BIBLE to these scum they carry on with their hate, lies and infantile posturing instead of addressing how they are wrong or misspoke. They will never ever repent. Such people should be either ignored or exposed for what they are. They only Bible verses that interest them are judgmental ones - used against critics, never against themselves. I do not believe they possess a conscience.

As just posted on his Facebook page:""I see that the maniac can't be bothered to actually consider the material [LIAR] and he prefers to attack people [LIAR]. He did that nonsense with the article shared on the Cowboy Bob Sorensen page from WHY?Outreach, he attacked the author of an article on global warming by finding someone online who didn't like said author[LIAR I ATTACKED HIM FOR LYING]. Everyone who disagrees with him is a liar because he said so [LIAR]. What an intellectual coward. [LIAR] viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=52118&hilit=grider#p52118 The liar, hypocite, bigot and coward is you, Not me, liar."

I should have written 'LIAR' after "He did that nonsense with the article shared on the Cowboy Bob Sorensen page from WHY?Outreach" too as my post here DID consider that the science claims in the papers selectively cited by Jake Hebert could possibly be correct and that I hoped it was "given Trump's antics"."

a_haworthroberts wrote:As just posted on his Facebook page:""I see that the maniac can't be bothered to actually consider the material [LIAR] and he prefers to attack people [LIAR]. He did that nonsense with the article shared on the Cowboy Bob Sorensen page from WHY?Outreach, he attacked the author of an article on global warming by finding someone online who didn't like said author[LIAR I ATTACKED HIM FOR LYING]. Everyone who disagrees with him is a liar because he said so [LIAR]. What an intellectual coward. [LIAR] viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=52118&hilit=grider#p52118 The liar, hypocite, bigot and coward is you, Not me, liar."

I should have written 'LIAR' after "He did that nonsense with the article shared on the Cowboy Bob Sorensen page from WHY?Outreach" too as my post here DID consider that the science claims in the papers selectively cited by Jake Hebert could possibly be correct and that I hoped it was "given Trump's antics"."

Thanks for confirming to the world that you are an evil hate-filled liar, Tapia:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/"Fascistly decided to spew his hate spam on my timeline. Can't have anybody disagreeing with his massive ego. Tell me again that atheists are tolerant, and see if you can do it with a straight face."I caught him out lying repeatedly and he knows it. So all the apology for a human can do is launch personal attacks in retaliation. Definitely not a genuine Christian.http://rationalfaith.com/2018/05/hell-is-for-liars/

The young earth creationist propaganda merchant is lying again:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/""Impact Geologists Find Lighting Quite Striking"This quartz is shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you! Secular geologists have used meteorite impacts as convenient explanations for features observed in the present, but nobody was there to see the alleged impacts. New evidence indicates that ancient lightning strikes were misinterpreted.Side note: A certain demoniac stalker did not want to deal with the content of a recent post, and *demanded* that I discuss shocked quartz. (Atheopaths and evolutionists do that, they try to hijack the subject for their personal convenience.) Stalker boy failed in his stalking, as I posted on this subject almost a year ago. This link will take you to two articles that should prove useful. -CBBhttp://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/08 ... iking.html"

Sorensen is lying - I HAVE dealt with the content of Sorensen's recent posts that I have criticised.

I asked Sorensen to discuss shocked quartz at the Chicxulub crater. He has refused to do so. Instead he has posted an old article about lightning and about impacts (which mentions shocked quartz). One which makes NO mention of the massive Chicxulub impact crater remains of which are visible today even though it is 66 million years old. YECs have an unpleasant habit of refusing to discuss or mention shocked quartz whenever the Chicxulub crater is being discussed.

Yes indeed - Sorensen is also excited about a 2017 science paper that another YEC propaganda merchant named Coppedge (who writes drivel like 'Lightning fries impact theory') was excited about last summer. This paper:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 17GL073843 (actually neither Sorenen nor Coppedge reference this link - but I stumbled across it)The Abstract says rather little about impact events (other than lightning) or about shocked quartz, and the phrase 'impact crater' does not appear either.

Coppedge in fact quotes from this letter (by a different author) also dated 14 July 2017 which references and discusses the paper at the agupubs link above - part of that quote is shown below:https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 17GL074840"In the future, it will not be enough to find PDFs in quartz to demonstrate the presence of an impact event, but impact proponents will also have to rule out lightning strikes as well. Given the other peculiarities of fulgurites, this should not be impossible ...".This second link makes NO reference whatsoever to the Chicxulub crater. And I note that Coppedge's piece shows an aerial shot of the large Manicouagan crater in Quebec - yet the second link NEVER mentions that - it only discusses what sound like smaller geological features in France, Australia and Argentina. I am sceptical that lightning could explain the Chicxulub crater - and strongly suspect that the scientists are making no such claim - and that the young earth creationists are clutching at straws because they don't like asteroids (yet other YECs claim there were many asteroid impacts during the Genesis flood).

And the YECs do try. Thus they have 'harmonised' rapid speciation and an ice age with verses in Genesis 8 and 9 which either mention no such thing (they simply talk about ark animals multiplying and filling the Earth) or strongly imply (God's own quoted words) that after the flood the seasons would be 'normal' - a 700 year ice age does not sound 'normal' to me.

Non-creationists think Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others were 'liars', Bob? No. They think they were uninformed about modern science.

But yes, compromiser Christians are also 'inventive' with the Bible whereas an atheist might typically read it like a creationist does. ''Many hate biblical creationists, and seek to destroy us through defamation, misrepresentation, and so on''. Speaking for myself, misrepresentation of 'biblical' creationists is never necessary and I never intentionally do it. The hate is not towards such creationists per se (I don't 'hate' David Bump or Todd Wood) it is towards those - the majority of them - who deliberately lie about and demonise their critics or otherwise behave in a dishonest, evasive and hypocritical manner.

Email as sent:"Sorensen and co again trying to prove a worldwide flood by adding stuff that is just not in the Bible (that the Genesis flood was accompanied by factual but ancient massive volcanism and fictional and impossible 'catastrophic plate tectonics'): http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/06 ... flood.html

How exactly is the fact that volcanism is mostly on a much smaller scale today and in recent centuries than it was when the Deccan Traps erupted or during known super-eruptions confirmation that the world is 'still settling down' from a biblical worldwide flood that, according to the Bible, ONLY involved water flooding the land from above and below (and a possible huge earthquake as the flood began)?

He and Coppedge conveniently ignore how this does not substantially affect climate change science. We already know that atmospheric concentrations of methane are increasing even if more of that than realised is due to mud volcanoes and (especially) microbes rather than processes caused by human-induced global warming such a melting permafrost (and there's no indication these 'natural' methane emissions are increasing, or decreasing, over time; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38285300)There has been no 'double counting' of methane emissions as far as I know (natural ones also being 'repeated' as human ones whether directly or indirectly). It's more a question that global models on the origin of atmospheric methane need to be re-thought.

And the venomous Coppedge appears not to have a clue what he is talking about: "How soon will the climate models that Big Science uses to threaten world governments change to correct for this “underestimate” of a major greenhouse gas?"

He is suggesting that climatologists are incompetent and acting in a threatening manner. He also seems to think that because the source(s) of these 'natural' emissions were not previously known therefore the added amounts of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were 'not' previously counted. (If that was the case the threat from global warming would be worse - rather than something that (as these people advocate) humans should concern themselves with less.)

The CREV article also mentions a similar 'natural' example involving carbon dioxide emissions. Even if more of the (increasing) levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are natural rather than anthropogenic, we cannot stop the former but we can curb the latter (if we ignore climate change bigots like Sorensen, Coppedge and Trump)."

(1)And Sorensen is lying AGAIN.http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2018/06 ... arwin.html"One study inadvertently agrees with biblical creationists that the majority of species in existence today haven't been around as long as evolutionists want to believe."What about the 99% of species NOT alive today, Bob (and which went un-biblically extinct, often before the Bible was written).

A couple of more honest YECs are much less excited about this paper than the rabble rouser Ken Ham was. And Todd Wood even pointed out:"First of all, let's recognize that this research, if correct on its face, would make a mess of created kinds. This article claims that all species [alive today] are roughly the same age, and creationist work over the past twenty years has generally agreed that the created kind (from which species descended) contains more than one species. A few created kinds contain many species. So this research would imply that the created kind is actually the same as the species, if we interpret it on the face. I think that's possible, but it would require a big adjustment to creationist thinking (for example, most of the Ark Encounter exhibits, with their imaginative created kind sculptures, would have to be ripped out and re-done)." http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2018/06/a ... e-age.html

Something Ken Ham - whose organisation proposes that 'created kinds' stuff - conveniently omitted to clearly spell out in his blog post dated 7 June. Instead, as I now notice, he wilfully tried to make the conclusion fit with what AiG (un-biblically imho) claim about 'created kinds' - whereas the research reached a conclusion about SPECIES.https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se ... 9303081961"All of the original kinds were created by God during creation week, about 6,000 years ago. This means all the original kinds are the same age (including humans). This doesn’t mean all the species we have today are the same age; species are still forming today. These species are simply varieties within a created kind. But it does mean all the kinds have the same age, and we would expect most species to have a similar age since they have arisen in the past 4,350 years from the kinds that got off the ark after the global flood of Noah’s day." By contrast: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-con ... educed.pdfThey refer to animals alive today and the animals alive today are members of SPECIES.

And Wood is a YEC, liar Bob. Unlike you and AiG (and the ICR and CMI etc) there are one or two YECs who DO care about facts and basic honesty and avoid pathological lying (accompanied by mud-slinging when their lies are revealed to thinking people).

But back to Bob's malign accusations against myself. "(When Ken Ham posted on this, a two-bit tinhorn railed as if Ham blatantly misrepresented the facts, and frantically searched for succor. Some Darwinoids seem to think that if they can find the slightest bit of contradiction to information they dislike, it is magically refuted.) If you want to see Ham's post, it has an embedded bit of video where Dr. Georgia Purdom and others discuss this news. It's refreshing when evolutionists are bluntly honest about the lack of evidence for their belief system."(Sorensen was flagging this post: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1785#p52114: NB I've just spotted one minor error, corrected it, and marked the correction in square brackets dated 25 June.)

The 'tinhorn' was actually TOO KIND to Ken Ham on the 'created kinds' point. Whilst I pointed out him making stuff up on 'very clear genetic boundaries' that wasn't present elsewhere on the AiG website, I neglected to highlight how he twisted the research's conclusion to 'confirm' stuff that AiG believe about all the original 'kinds' having the 'same age' (I thought he was now admitting that - if this research is right - God after all created species in Genesis 1 - but no, rather than do that, he TWISTED the conclusion of the research and made it 'show' that all 'kinds' have the 'same age').

I also certainly did NOT claim falsely that Ham misrepresented the (reported) facts. Ham wrote: "In an evolutionary worldview, which assumes an ancient age for many of the species we have today, the results of this study are shocking. Indeed, one of the researchers said, “The conclusion is very surprising . . . and I fought against it as hard as I could. Evolution doesn’t expect the vast majority of our species to have arrived at the same time, nor does it expect species to have these clear genetic boundaries." But that is NOT accurately reporting this article (which Ham linked to): https://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech ... -in-darwinWhich reported: ""The conclusion [that 100,000 animals first appeared at roughly the same time] is very surprising," one of the researchers said, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."" The article did not say he fought against the conclusion that species have clear genetic boundaries. That is also totally backed up by this article, Bob: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-surv ... ution.html"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP."

As Bob KNOWS I have already said, but is DELIBERATELY ignoring because he WANTS to lie about me rather than ever admit that a YEC got something wrong (me quoting from the wrong Ken Ham' link, now corrected, does not justify Bob's accusation against me concerning Ken Ham).

(2)And AGAIN Sorensen is LYING:http://www.biblecreation.com/2018/06/th ... omise.html (please see the addendum)After I had published this, an angry atheopath who is incapable of accurately representing creationists had a diatribe with this comment: "Non-creationists think Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others were 'liars', Bob? No. They think they were uninformed about modern science." While this is not the main point of the article linked below, it is worth addressing, although I wonder who appointed him the representative of non-creationists.First, he needs to learn to read. The chain of compromise has people calling those listed as liars, I did not say that non-creationists call them liars. Second, it's a non sequitur because this is about the spiritual implications. More importantly, theistic evolutionists have stated that Jesus and the others did not know modern science. When they do this, they are admitting that they reject the divine inspiration (θεόπνευστος) of Scripture, and are denying Jesus, who is the Creator, is God.The effects of the chain of compromise are serious indeed. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1125#p52126

Sorensen's blog implied that 'God's enemies' (and compromiser Christians who accept consensus science) are in effect saying that Jesus, Peter, Jude and Paul are 'liars'. "Such things are based on atheistic interpretations of data. Using the opinions of God's enemies to tell God what he said and meant is mighty improper. What kind of message is that? You believe the Bible from cover to cover — except the first chapters of Genesis, you need humanist "wisdom" for that. If they study on it, they should see that it causes a chain reaction of compromise (and even calling Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others liars) all the way to Revelation."

So in response I wrote:"Non-creationists think Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others were 'liars', Bob? No. They think they were uninformed about modern science."

I did NOT 'misrepresent' the liar Sorensen (I certainly did NOT say anything like "biblical creationists are calling Jesus, Peter, Jude and Paul 'liars'"). He protests: "I did not say that non-creationists call them liars". Well you strongly implied it. And you have not told us what you 'really' meant. All I did was ask a question (and answer it) based on what Sorensen actually wrote. I did NOT say "Sorensen said..." and I did NOT misquote him either. I suggest he should Man up (and stop whining about nothing).

And guess what. After falsely saying I am incapable of accurately representing people like him, Sorensen then AGREES with what I said. Talk about having your cake and eating it. "Theistic evolutionists have stated that Jesus and the others did not know modern science".

But this person is two-faced, venomous - and simply evil.

Cynically evil.

He will never ever repent.

Every time he is publicly refuted or when [shown] to be a hateful liar Sorensen pretends (publicly) that NOTHING HAPPENED. And carries on as before.

Why do evil people who claim to be converted to Christianity invariably embrace YEC rather than OEC or TE or ID? Is it because such people enjoy lying (and hating)?

SHORT ANSWERThe abundant evidence for an extremely old Earth and an even older universe trumps this evidence offered by Mortenson. Young Earth is a religious position not a scientific one.

LONG ANSWERI see that Mortenson claims here to 'love' science. He would say that. But it's science not as we know it. He says it's 'true science'. In fact it's presuppositional Bible apologetics, attacks upon science, a bit of pseudo-science, and falsehoods about evidence. Not science as most people would understand the term. Here are some pertinent extracts:

"Ultimately, the origins debate is a spiritual battle. Both Darwinian evolution and the idea of millions of years were created in the minds of people in rebellion against their Creator. They were inventing an alternative story to the inspired, inerrant history in Genesis 1–11, so they would not feel the need to be morally accountable to the Creator. That is fundamentally the same reason that most people today believe these ideas and are unwilling to consider Genesis 1–11 and the powerful scientific evidence that confirms that truth.""You say, “To bring them to young-earth creation is much more difficult.” Of course, it often is, because the world has been so thoroughly brainwashed not to believe Genesis." "Accepting millions of years of the geological ages (as the evolutionists interpret the fossil record) destroys the Bible’s teaching on death, which clearly indicates that there was no animal death or human death before the fall. In addition, there could not have been thorns and thistles and cancer (e.g., in dinosaur bones) in God’s “very good” creation. So the rock layers that contain these things can’t be millions of years old but must have been deposited after Adam sinned (primarily during Noah’s Flood). Tony, you say that you “understand the importance of the doctrine of original sin and believe that event happened less than 10,000 years ago.” If that is so, then you should be a young-earth creationist." "Since the Bible clearly teaches young-earth creation, you should need no more evidence. God’s Word teaches it and that settles it for me. I love science, and because of biblical teaching (e.g., Psalm 19:1; Job 12:7–10; Romans 1:18–20), I know that when the creation is carefully observed and properly interpreted (using the eyewitness testimony of the Creator to guide our interpretation rather than using antibiblical, naturalistic presuppositions to interpret), we will see abundant evidence that God’s Word is indeed true."

Mortenson then offers what he calls 'scientific arguments' for a young Earth. I beg to differ. "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from “letting the physical facts speak for themselves” but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See “Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are They Related?” and the Millions of Years DVD. The rock record is screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” Secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in those naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. For the same reason, most Christian geologists can’t see or hear the message, in addition to the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible, even though they claim it is the inspired Word of God." That's like me saying evolution is true because creationists have been brainwashed by their dogma.

The rest of these claimed scientific arguments is basically pleas to read other AiG materials, claims that Mount St Helens and the Grand Canyon somehow point to a young Earth, denial of unconformities in places like Siccar Point (though Mortenson just claims, without foundation or a supporting reference, that "there is an almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (e.g., plant roots and burrow marks) at the upper surfaces of the various strata").

Mortenson also offers those young earth chestnuts of polystrate fossils, unspecified bent sedimentary layers at the Grand Canyon, 'very' rapid burial (ergo they died in the Genesis flood), and that YEC favourite (also used by Tas Walker of CMI) when they run out of 'scientific' arguments - "the radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, antibiblical assumptions used for interpreting all the other geological evidence, and there is plenty of published evidence proving that they do not give valid dates". Omitting the fact that they hardly EVER give any dates that would fit a 'biblical' timescale.

And Mortenson's parting shot? "Both God’s Word and his creation are saying the same thing. And over the past 50 years, true science has been increasingly confirming Scripture. As evolutionists and creationists do more research in the years ahead, we can fully expect that many young-earth creationists’ questions will be answered and will further confirm that God created the whole universe a few thousand years ago."

Or - if not - they could attempt to explain in 2068 that this lack of progress is due to God having cursed his creation (due to human sin), as Mortenson mentions in the same paragraph?

Now would not Christianity be more convincing it there really was compelling evidence that Earth and the wider universe really are just 6,000 years old ie objects not created by humans really did look, contextually, no older than 6,000 years (and there were no pesky interstellar comets or asteroids visiting our solar system after travelling across empty spaces for millions or billions of years though of course we now know of both Oumuamua and 2015 BZ509)?

If Christianity is, nevertheless true, it suggests that God will send some people to hell partly or mainly for accepting scientific reality and ignoring untruths put out by young earth creationist fundamentalists (some of whose teachings are motivated by the Bible but not found in the Bible).

Which may be possible since eternal punishment in a hell is considered obscene and cruel punishment - even by some Bible believing (compromised in the eye of Answers in Genesis) Christians. A God who would torture non wicked (and wicked) unbelievers might also be an egotist who demands 'believe my word' whilst making belief more difficult by planting abundant physical evidence for an extremely old Earth and even older universe.

But lest I might appear as long-winded as Mortenson, I will stop there.

The fact that Earth is billions of years old and the universe even older might not be believed by these fundamentalists but that changes nothing about this scientific reality that the human race has uncovered and which many Christians are not at all troubled by.

It's science Bob. We all know you people detest its findings. Which is why real scientists ignore you.

So you lie about alleged 'circular reasoning' and invent Noah's Flood pseudo-science to try and question reality.

To quote from page 80 in that new Davidson-Wolgemuth paper 'Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence: Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14' (it's behind a paywall until 2019):

''... A closely related charge is that the tree-ring and varvestudies were performed for the purpose of improving aradiocarbon calibration curve; therefore, our claim of notmaking use of calibration curves is somehow employingcircular reasoning and our conclusions invalidated. This charge boils down to the nonsensical assertion thatone cannot use data for more than one purpose. The citedresearchers used their measured carbon-14 to refine a calibrationcurve. We made use of their measured data for acompletely different purpose. Circular reasoning was left inthe unemployment line.Other young-earth claims of circular reasoning have similarexplanations.''

Unfortunately for Bob and co I believe the Christians who are telling the truth about varves and the like (unlike young Earthers they have no incentive to lie since the Bible does indeed wrongly imply that Earth is just thousands of years old) are the ones at the American Scientific Affiliation. And not the bigoted fundamentalists who defend a 'young Earth' every day of the year.

A venomous boorish loud hate-mongering liar and apology for a human being.

He REALLY REALLY hates me (which is strange when you consider my many 'defeats' at his superior hands):https://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/20 ... eists.html"Especially atheists, who swarm like piranhas. It's the digital version of schoolyard bullying, where they gang up to ridicule Christians and creationists. (Side note: Chris Plante dislikes the wordbullying, preferring harassment and other accurate phrases. I use it because it shows the childish nature of village atheists on teh interweb.) They were as prideful and irrational as Haywire the Stalker (who has been defeated numerous times, but still spews venom). Since Twitter allows multiple anonymous accounts, these keyboard warriors were free to indulge in excessive profanity and persecution. Come to think of it, internet atheists like Haywire, the Twitter and YouTube blackguards, other "New Atheists" — they're the intellectual and moral equivalent of MS-13, but more feckless. Perhaps if I knew their real names, I could send each one a fruit basket. Better yet, a magnet with The Question Evolution Project on it. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1785#p52148

Like Haywire the Stalker, these sidewinders have uniformity of non-thought, and a certain degree of predictability. While they have exceptional arrogance and hypocrisy, internet atheists are actually quite boring...

They need to repent before their eternity is sealed (Heb. 9:27), but I think they, like Haywire who called God a liar, prefer to increase in hatred."

For his information (ie something for him to ignore because he has conveniently decided that anything I say is 'lies' - because that's what crazed liars do when they can't support their own accusations) I have never ever used Twitter and do not intend to start. OK he does not actually state that I tweet. But he is still bad-mouthing me in a post entitled 'In the Maelstrom of Twitter Atheists'. (Previously Sorensen has falsely accused me of using multiple identities online.)

Meanwhile, please will just ONE recipient tell me about all (or some) of the times I have been 'defeated' by 'Cowboy Bob Sorensen' (I mean on science or Bible topics or on whether the liar is me or him - and not at football/soccer which would be difficult since the USA can't get into the World Cup even under Trump, no offence to decent Americans - ouch ).

Sorensen's idea of a 'decent' conversation? The banning and censoring of all people, including Christians, who challenge his baseless young earth creationist claims or those by other YEC apologists which he endorses. And then lying about the banned people to his bigoted bunch of followers, followed by back-slapping. (A pattern of behaviour which has been extensively documented at the BCSE community forum: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1125)

Like I have been saying this week at the BCSE forum, if hell exists some people will be in hell because they encountered 'Christians' (some may even be real Christians for all I know) like Cowboy Bob Sorensen. He's a good advert for the lie that 'all Christians are appalling' and also an advert for the hypothesis that 'if there really was a loving as well as just God he would change evil people like this person' (though of course it requires co-operation on his part too, which is apparently not forthcoming as instead he digs in).

Sorensen has learnt that his bullying and lies will not silence me and stop me exposing him for what he is. A fake and a bigot. So I guess he's decided to bait me instead, perhaps hoping that I might 'disappoint' him by refusing to take his 'Haywire' bait. I think what really disappoints is that I both take the bait AND refute him to the best of my ability with both truth and precision.

I suggest (again) that real Christians should have nothing to do with this evil person - other than to alert people to his bigotry and utter hypocrisy, or challenge his claims when appropriate if you have the necessary time, motivation for objective truth and stamina.

I just sent him a message under his blog."I think you are a lying s**t (by all means quote me as long as you prove me wrong). BCSE post follows."

Of course, if I had never exposed Sorensen as a fraud he would not have me as a propaganda tool for the fools who follow his pages. But we also would not have all the refutations of this oaf that can be perused here (and elsewhere):viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1125

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/07 ... nists.html"... the passel of expected transitional fossils to justify the story are nonexistent".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _to_whales"Whales and everything else were created recently, which is an excellent explanation as to why evolutionists are continually frustrated."But evolutionary scientists don't lie about evidence or about 'biblical' creationists. Who are often confused and cannot agree among themselves (eg with feathered dinos which most but not all of them deny or with Homo naledi 'ape or us' etc) even with a 'very recent' creation - rather than life having been around for over 3 billion years and much of the fossil record probably still to be discovered (or never discovered).

I was also going to comment on this - which Sorensen likes even though it is not the lying propaganda that he himself often writes. But comments are 'closed' (so much for YEC tolerance):http://rationalfaith.com/2016/02/misgui ... utionists/"Two comments. No real scientists believe that Earth's magnetic field has done nothing but decline since the planet existed. And in a 6,000 year old universe there should be no supernovae or their remnants at all."He's wrong about diamonds and 'no contamination is possible' too. As usual the YEC science is in fact science denial or attacking strawmen or cherry picking.